Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Actually, I think I can answer that second question. Chances are that you didn't hear about this act of domestic terrorism because major newspapers and networks haven't covered it.

A bomb in Times Square failed to explode recently, and just about everyone in the U.S. heard about it. A bomb in a mosque succeeded in exploding last week, and next to no one in the U.S. has heard about it.

Why the difference? Why the double standard?

My presumption that next to no Americans have heard about the Florida mosque bombing isn't quite accurate. Many, many Muslims in the U.S. have heard about it. And many of them are expressing dismay that so few others have heard about it.

On the evening of May 10, there was a small explosion and fire outside a Jacksonville, FL mosque. According to a fire department investigation and officials of the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida, worshipers heard a loud noise outside the mosque, and there was a small fire that was extinguished. The damage was described as “very minimal” by a Jacksonville Fire and Rescue spokesperson. Thank God, no one was injured in the attack.

According to the Council on American Islamic Relations, mosque officials reported that an unknown white man in his 40s entered the mosque on April 4 and shouted “Stop this blaspheming.” He was chased away by worshipers, but he reportedly said, “I will be back.” Now, it has been determined that the explosion was due to a pipe bomb, and it is being investigated as a possible act of domestic terrorism. “It was a dangerous device, and had anybody been around it they could have been seriously injured or killed,” says Special Agent James Casey.

Yet, you would not be faulted for not knowing that it even occurred. Most of the news coverage has been local in Florida. There has not been nearly the same amount of coverage at the failed bombing in Times Square.

Now, of course, the size of this pipe bomb is nothing compared to the size of the truck bomb allegedly placed by Faisal Shahzad. The mosque bombing was perpetrated by one individual, and it increasingly looks like the Taliban in Pakistan were behind the attempted bombing in Times Square. Obviously, an attack on Times Square in the middle of a tourist/theater district is much more of a story than an attack on a mosque in Florida.

But just as the Times Square bomb could have really done harm, the pipe bomb could have also done a lot of harm. FBI officials noted that the blast radius could have been 100 feet. In addition, The FBI Special Agent in Florida, James Casey, had added: “We want to sort of emphasize the seriousness of the thing and not let people believe that this was just a match and a little bit of gasoline that was spread around.” The attempted attack on Times Square was rightly called an act of terrorism. But, as this news report says: “The FBI is looking at this case as a possible hate crime, and now they’re analyzing it as a possible act of domestic terrorism.”

A pipe bomb that explodes outside a mosque causing a fire a possible act of domestic terrorism? What if a pipe bomb exploded in Times Square? Or outside a church? Would this be called terrorism? Of course it would. . . and it should. So should this attack on the Jacksonville, FL mosque.

Mair notes that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced a $5,000 reward for information regarding this act of terrorism, and she also notes that CAIR has

“questioned the silence of public officials and national media about a bomb attack.” CAIR reported that “media coverage has for the most part been restricted to Florida and that there have been no public condemnations of the bombing at the national level.”

Like Mair, and like most of us, I haven't seen or read any national news regarding this terrorist bombing of a mosque. I suspect this silence is a symptom of the white-framed corporate media's rigidly limited narrative for "terrorism," which conceptualizes it as a "Muslim" thing, as well as an "Arabic" thing.

The racist result of this limited framing is that acts of terrorism inflicted on non-white spaces and people don't receive the attention they deserve. And in turn, one result of that lack of attention is that the perpetrators -- like the one in this Florida bombing -- often elude identification and arrest, sometimes for far longer than the people who perpetrate, or even plan to perpetrate, more stereotypical forms of terrorism.

I'll leave the last words on this xenophobic and racist double standard to J. Samia Mair:

I don’t recall seeing anything [about the Florida mosque bombing] on the national news. Surely, if the FBI considers this incident possibly "domestic terrorism" it should garner some attention. I can’t help but to wonder that if a church or synagogue had been bombed -- no matter how small the explosion -- there would have been some sort of national coverage.

What really gets to me is that virtually NOBODY sees a white man/"Christian" who commits a terrorist act as a representative of HIS race or religion, yet if an Arab American or Muslim person commits such an act it is seen as "typical" behavior, and he is looked at as the norm for his race/religion.

That's the thing. White terrorists are patriots, cranks, weirdos and eminently forgettable. Christian terrorists, similarly, are almost deified in the media and by much of the country. Try telling people Scott Roeder is a terrorist. Try saying that we should watch out for Christian fundamentalists and white extremists. See what'll happen.

"Like Mair, and like most of us, I haven't seen or read any national news regarding this terrorist bombing of a mosque. I suspect this silence is a symptom of the white-framed corporate media's fixed narrative for "terrorism," which conceptualizes it as a "Muslim" thing, as well as an "Arabic" thing."

These white entities got it bad, and that ain’t good; for the news will always be framed to favor whites in the best possible light. Whites are just as reluctant to portray another white person as a racist as they are to label a white person terrorist. To some, “white-terrorism” is an oxymoron, a slight against every freedom-loving patriot in this nation; best to error on the side of caution lest we paint all white people with a broad brush. As long as precious white lives aren’t threatened then why care?

With whites affecting every aspect of this commonwealth, it just isn’t news if it doesn’t affect white skin in some way. This is why it is almost inconceivable for a terrorist to be white; white skin being synonymous with only the purist, exemplary aspects of man. Best to ascribe any obvious act of terrorism to mental illness- or some other stupid act.

Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! said..."Who wanna bet the bombing was committed by a Tea Bagger douche-bag who hates Obama and thinks Obama is a "secret Muslin [sic] " and hates Mexicans as well?"

Then he will be pegged as "One Sick Individual," certainly not representative of the law-abiding white citizens who love this country. Yet even then he will have a slew of sympathizers. "He just got fed up; a man can only take so much before he's force to take action," some will say. He will be lauded in blogs and forums as a man of action.

Is the purpose of your question an effort to sidestep the possibility that a terrorist can be white? I’m not sure I understand your query. The Unabomber was a terrorist- Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Andrew Joseph Stack, the pilot who deliberately crashed his plane into a federal IRS center was a terrorist. The Michigan-based Militia seeking to ferment an uprising against the government/Antichrist by killing police officers was a terrorist organization in my opinion.

“Crimes committed by hate groups or offenders and those committed by terrorist groups are often very similar, both in method and in effect. For example, a person acting from a motive of religious bias might use an incendiary device (one that causes fire, such as a Molotov cocktail) to burn down a mosque, church, or synagogue. A terrorist group might use the same type of device to burn down a government building. In both cases the results are property damage, intimidation, and possibly even the deaths of or injuries to innocent people.”

Given the two choices it might be viewed as less inciting by the media/law enforcement to label such an act as a hate crime- thereby ascribing all culpability to the individual rather than any particular group- race, or organization. Something done out of hatred or illness, rather than a plan of action pulled off by an organized faction. Course I could be wrong..

>> "virtually NOBODY sees a white man/"Christian" who commits a terrorist act as a representative of HIS race or religion, yet if an Arab American or Muslim person commits such an act"

If you're going to put "Christian" in quotes to indicate (rightly IMH-but-credentialed-O) that a Christian who professes zir own religion as the motive for a terrorist act is not a Christian, "Muslim" and "Islam" should get scare quotes as well, or else (dang, I can't believe I'm saying this) you need to drop the quotes with 'Christian' as well.

I occasionally see the word "Christianist" used to describe the militant ideology underlying fundagelical Christianity, a parallel to "Islamist"--perhaps we could start using those?

I don't know about this one. It sounds like a local deal to me. There are plenty of local stories that don't make the national news. A bombing in a place like Times Square, a bustling area in a city that's a known terrorist target (not to mention, where a few national news HQs are located), is a bit different than a single, anger-based attack on any specific population. I'm not excusing the criminal or saying that the event was insignificant. Please don't misunderstand me. Anytime we talk about the people's lives being in danger, it's important. And before anyone asks, I'm not white either. I'm just saying we need to be careful about blaming every injustice on white supremacy. There might be a different problem here.

@teatime re: "I'm just saying we need to be careful about blaming every injustice on white supremacy. There might be a different problem here."

I don't think anybody has blamed every injustice on white supremacy, but this particular one serves to sustain white supremacy, does it not? Keeping a story about Muslims as victims of this crime preserves the Muslims as terrorists narrative.

As for the local angle, even tiny stories get national news attention when the issue is taken up by someone who finds a political reason to do so. In this case, no one saw fit to do so, for whatever reason. That is the issue here, not whether the crime itself was perpetrated by a white supremacist or whether there are white supremacist motives in keeping it out of the national discourse.

Joana and Victoria: agreed with christian + White=local a-hole instead of criminal and terrorist when he or she uses violence against people of color is a double standard indeed. Think of the long history of KKK in the U.S. It wasn't until this decade 2000s, that the KKK is now considered a terrorist organization when its been committing acts of terrorism going back two centuries to the 1820s or 1800s even.

It all goes back to the stereotypes of people of color equaling violence and threats in the minds of some white people whereas white people represent innocent and need of protection. Crazy world we live in. Agreed with all comments. Aan

It sounds like a local deal to me. There are plenty of local stories that don't make the national news.

Have we really reached the point where a bomb going off in this country is just local news? I'd like to think not, but sadly that appears to be true.

And even if it was a "local deal", it's part of a larger trend: the targeting of Muslims and Muslim organizations after 9/11. There should at least be some awareness of that. Were bombings of Black churches in the '60s "local" news? Or was a church bombing in, say, Alabama reported in the NY Times? (I'm ashamed to say I don't know the answer to that). Even if they were considered local news, the trend as a whole is part of a national (I hope) history curriculum these days.

I'm just saying we need to be careful about blaming every injustice on white supremacy. There might be a different problem here.

Aside from the de-railing, must every injustice have only a single cause? There may be additional problems (like, say, the reduction of the day's news to 23 minutes of sound bites plus commercials), but that doesn't mean the racism isn't there. An event in which racism is but one of many forces is no less toxic to society.

The overwhelming majority of broadcast and print news is profit-driven, and is unlikely to cover items that go against "conventional wisdom". Most news purveyors are owned by a few entertainment conglomerates. From the owners' point of view, the SOLE PURPOSE of news is to get people to see the adverts. As we all know, there are "desirable" and "less desirable" demographic categories of viewers for specific categories of products, "desirable" being equivalent to "has both disposable income and the desire to spend". Of course prejudice, racial and otherwise, plays into the definition of "desirable" viewers. The news that gets presented is the news that will not offend the majority of viewers and advertisers. Editors do not have unlimited freedom to report news - if they want a job, they don't do certain types of articles. Ditto for reporters. I am not talking just about FOX, well known to provide explicit directions on how to present news to make conservatives look good and progressives look like spawn of Satan. Self-censorship occurs at daily newspapers, ABC, CNN, NPR, large-circulation news magazines, radio stations owned by media corporations....

The news media is so disgusting... I can't stand the hypocrisy. If this had happened in a church, the news media would have hopped all over it, and probably would have accused someone that is irreligious before considering the jerk that actually did it.

I'm leaving this argument. I'm starting to wish I hadn't made a comment. It seems not holding the popular opinion at this blog is a quick way to be villanized. Some of your responses did make sense to me, but I don't want to address them. I'll say this: it's just as easy to become obsessed with bolstering an opinion (confirmation bias, perhaps) as it is to become blind to what should be obvious. I do not believe there was a political or racial agenda behind "ignoring" this story. I could be wrong, but if I am, it didn't seem clear to me from this post. I'm not in any way saying white supremacy does not exist; believe me, I know better. I'm also not suggesting there's no ridiculously negative and prejudiced view of Muslims and people of Middle Eastern decent in this country. There is, and it makes me sick, too. I'm just not sure this is an example.

Sorry, M. Gibson, I was still working through that thought and wasn't, therefore, very clear. Not at all trying to sidestep the possibility of terrorist being white. And I agree with the point you make in your last paragraph.

Where I started was reading how the police originally classified the mosque bombing as a hate crime, and then said they were investigating it as possible domestic terrorism. That made me wonder how one distinguishes between a terrorist act and a hate crime.

Where I was going was to wonder if all hate crimes aren't--by definition--terrorist acts. That they don't get classified as such--or generally CONCEIVED of as such--is testament to how racism distorts perception/thinking.

I suspect that there's a school of thought that argues that violence is only terrorism if it's directed at a nation-state or government. I'm challenging this definition and arguing that terrorism should be redefined to encompass hate crimes.

Is that more clear? I feel like I'm still a bit muddled and working through these thoughts...

@teatime re: 'I do not believe there was a political or racial agenda behind "ignoring" this story.'

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, teatime, but that's not what I, at least, was saying. I hope you will consider the possibility that an action or set of actions can be free of any political or racial agenda and still contribute to the overall maintenance of a racial hierarchy, in this case white supremacy.

I can imagine, for example, that the news service editors might have thought that picking up this story and widely publicizing it would encourage copycat crimes against mosques elsewhere in the country, so out of concern for Muslims they thought it better to watch and see how it developed. That motive, however, doesn't change one bit the effect of not picking up the story in terms of continuing the narrative of white Christian bomber=nut case but any "out-group" bomber=terrorist.

In a similar way, a decision might be made in a company not to hire someone from a racial group different from those already employed there out of concern for the new hire's comfort: "I don't think she'd feel comfortable in our 'white bread' little office." But the effect is the same as if the applicant had been rejected because the management actively hates people of color. Motives only matter if we're talking about the morality of those who make these decisions, and in the case of institutional racism (the institution being the news media here), we're not talking about individual morality.

@Julia/the other Julia..."I suspect that there's a school of thought that argues that violence is only terrorism if it's directed at a nation-state or government. I'm challenging this definition and arguing that terrorism should be redefined to encompass hate crimes.

Is that more clear? I feel like I'm still a bit muddled and working through these thoughts..."

@thelady - well: Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, whoever it was who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, the antrax attacker. As far as I know, all white (sorry I don't remember the names).

@M / @Julia - the difficulty people have with coming up with a firm definition of a hate crime is one of the reasons I'm really uncomfortable with hate crime legislation.

But in general, I'd say they tend to overlap, although I'd define it as a hate crime is generally aimed at an individual while terrorism is aimed at influencing a population. So, for example, the attacks on that Danish cartoonist are both.

Times Square is an awful example to use in order to demostreate swpd: "pay little attention to terrorism directed against minorities", and even demonstrates the opposite.

Fist of all, have you been to times square? ain't exactly the whitest part of town as evidenced by the guy who reported the suspicious vehicle. so this was indeed terrorism directed against minorities.

also, it was fist assumed the suspect was a white male, and many left-leaning white people went giddy with excitement, as this terrorism is indeed a huge meme in progressive circles. even the NYC mayor speculated the terrorist was upset over obama's HCR law.

@teatime:It seems not holding the popular opinion at this blog is a quick way to be villanized.

I hope you'll keep reading the comments. I don't think we all necessarily have to agree there. I just spent a while catching up on the year-and-a-half of posts I missed since I first started reading a few weeks ago, and there are plenty of cases where people disagreed, not only with each other, but also with the original post. I didn't think any of the replies portrayed you as a villain. But it's not my place to tell you how you felt or have a right to feel, and nobody has to participate in a discussion they don't want to participate in. (I saw 3 replies to your post, one of which was mine. Perhaps my comment about de-railing was not appropriate in this situation)

I do not believe there was a political or racial agenda behind "ignoring" this story.

I don't think there needs to be an explicit agenda for something to be motivated by a given force. It's pretty unlikely that the editors of the major news outlets got together in a room and said "Well, there's this story about a mosque bombing in Florida, but, well, screw them". But the force of racism was likely present, even subconsciously. This went out over the AP newswire, so it's not like other media outlets didn't hear about it. What made them not report it? Can I say with absolute certainty that the bombing of a predominantly white church wouldn't be just local news? Of course not. But it's more likely than not, in my opinion.

Pretty sure the word "terrorist" has been reinvented by The Man as "a young Arab man with a beard." Never mind Timothy McVeigh, various abortion clinic bombers (almost all white!), assorted serial killers...

Also, seems like unless white adults or children are killed, a news story isn't sensational enough for "America."

Didn't you get the memo? White Americans are flawless, angelic, figures who have only committed horrible acts "reluctantly" when their hands were tied, or if they were simply "having a bad day" from the weight of the world crashing down on them (because it's tough being white in America).

@Mephisto - I don't know, the only positive coverage I can think of is some right-wing fringe types who talked up the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building. I remember national outrage when Gore Vidal interviewed McVeigh, and I haven't seen anything positive about the Unabomber, the anthrax poisoner, or other white terrorists. Has there been positive coverage of those Michigan militia nutjobs? I haven't seen any over here in Europe.

I wonder, though, if it would have received attention if there weren't other, much larger stories going on in the same general part of the country...

Also, I can't help wondering if the importance of NYC (and its history of terrorist attacks) probably played a role too. If this had happened there, it might have received a lot more coverage, come to think of it...

@tudza, who wrote:The UN doesn't have a standard definition of terrorism. Not sure why you complain when one person here asks what it is.

1) Because just about the only time there's any hesitation to use the word "terrorism" to describe acts of mass/public violence is when the perpetrator is considered white. The word gets tossed around pretty casually— unless we're talkin' white people. Only then do people scramble to find some other way to characterize these things. Only then do people suddenly not know how to define terrorism. Which is pretty hard to swallow, since...

2) As I've vowed to point out every single time something like this is said— I will not let this shit pass— "domestic terrorism" is defined in the US. Poorly defined, but defined nonetheless:

§802 Definition of Domestic Terrorism (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that: (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.That's the "USA PATRIOT Act," and it be the law.So tell me: why should anyone hesitate to call this bombing terrorism? What, the UPA doesn't apply to white people? Or... it doesn't protect Muslims? Both? I just wanna be clear here! [Obviously, we're speculating at this point. But how come when we speculate about Malik Hasan, he's a prolly a jihadi? How come when we speculate about Amy Bishop, she's "just mixed up"?]

3) Seems to me a hate crime is a subset of terrorism (vernacular def'n and Patriot-Act def'n). Why isn't an act like this both terrorism and a hate crime? Judging by how some people get, you'd think "hate crime" was somehow better or something (it isn't), or that the two terms were mutually exclusive (they aren't). Is "hate crime" easier to handle? Not as big a deal? Why? Could it be that "hate crime" is (and perhaps has always been, in Real America's unconscious mind) nothing but a euphemism for "terrorism perpetrated by 'normal' people"?

Those are often swept under the rug and never talked about in an attempt to act as if they never happened. If it's possible, re-written as a heroic act, like Christopher Columbus or the Boston Tea Party (which was just another False Flag Operation that white people have been known to do).

"Fist of all, have you been to times square? ain't exactly the whitest part of town as evidenced by the guy who reported the suspicious vehicle. so this was indeed terrorism directed against minorities."

No, it was terrorism perpetuated against an American or American-residing majority. It was not intentionally directed at racial minorities.

Macon, thanks for covering this. I'm not entirely sure if this bombing can be compared to the one in Times Square (for sheer location and size of target), but at the same time, this is but one example of a larger problem -- the American (and mostly white, but not entirely) need to vilify Muslims, and the inequality with which the term "terrorist" is applied to those who commit terrorist acts, based entirely on whether or not their name sounds like it is of Arab (or Indian/Pakistani) descent.